Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Angus
25th of June, JG52 III
Otto decker claims a Spitfire.
Werner Keidel gets shot down. KIA?
Willi Bielefeld - same. KIA?
Hans Schmidt - same, POW
Max Reiss - same, POW

8 pilots from 1 staffel in 2 days. Possibly 1 confirmed victory, since the Spitfires claimed on the 24th did not show as a loss on the RAF side.
Guppy??

Anyway, that's a lot of blood, 2/3rd of the staffel in 2 days.
The pilots shot down were primarily veterans, and on both days the top guy!
No wonder they pulled it out within the week.
Wonder which RAF pilots were at the trigger.
Guppy????? Milo?????

I show six Spits downed in combat with a number damaged as well.

As for the JG52 birds.

III/JG52  Me109E shot down in combat with 610 Squadron Spitfires.  Lt. Schmidt missing, aircraft lost.

7/JG52  Me109E Shot down in combat with 610 Squadron Spitfires.  Oblt. Keidel missing. (Staffel Kapitan) aircraft lost.

Me109E shot down in combat with 610 squadron Spitfires.  Staffel Fuhrer Obltl. Bielfeld killed, aircraft lost.

8/JG52 Brought down near Elvington following combat with 610 Squadron Spitfires.   Uffz. Riess captured, aircraft lost.

I'd say the boys from 610 had the best of them that day.

610 lost one Spit that crashed on landing killing the pilot after this fight and had one damaged but repairable with the pilot wounded in the arm.

None of the RAF losses are credited to the JG52 guys and the 610 kite didn't go down in the battle but back at base.  The other losses seem to have been during a battle over the convoys with Ju87s and JG26 109s.

Dan/Slack

[Angus]

610.
I'll have look and see if there were any of the top guns there...

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Now Izzie, you are one insulent little twit.
Are you calling Gunther Rall himself in as an urban legend for starters?
He is a LIVING legend, and I had the honor of talking to him yesterday.
Yet, you choose to promote your usual garbage, and highly selectED data, although some of it may be quite authentic.
To be honest, you deserve a bloody spanking lesson

[/B]

Angie, you got your period today, right?

This is not really going round and round since it is basically broadt times width times height. Total value is cubics.
I have had a walkaround  with a 109 and several Spitfires, along with some cockpit peeking. So I don't need to refer with a video.
You present Stiegler. I asked Rall. Belive what you want, but my final conclusion is from firstly my own eyes and then by asking Rall, that THE SPITFIRE COCKPIT IS DEFINATELY SOMEWHAT ROOMIER THAN THE COCKPIT OF A 109.

[/B]

Ok, so basically your say after making numerous claims of which you backed up none, that no matter what, you are right. Classy!

BTW, did Stiegler have some flying hours in the Spitfire?

[/B]

Well most likely he did, because it was stated he flew and liked it.

Yes, you and Niklas actually. I think I have some pictures of the frontal area from you, I will look it up.
OMG, could it have been that the Spitfire had smaller frontal area?????

[/B]

Yeah angie, you will look it up and present it, I am hearing that for the 1000th time...


The P51 cockpit is narrow and deep, and long. About as wide as the cockpit of a 109. Did you ever have a look at a P51 cockpit up close? nnaaaaa you bloody well didn't!


Bloody I did that. Maybe I can even look up the pics I took, about 2 years ago.

Here`s a good picture on how long the 109 cocpit exactly was. A Spitfire cocpit was about half long than that.




I let you guess what airplane is being described in the following report by RAE :


At low altitudes, even with the hot air shut off completely, the cockpit is uncomfortably warm. This is due to hot air coming from the radiator unit, as the top of the radiator shell is exposed to the interior of the fuselage. Air leaking through the fairing duct and various holes for the coolant pipes, combined with the convection currents from the radiator, sweep upwards striking the pilot in the back of the neck before passing out through the ventilation louvers.

The head room provided is inadequate. Even with the seat fully down, and average sized pilot feels very cramped. No undue noise or vibration was experienced under any conditions of flight.  


But why guess the plane if we can ask the USN too?




You might as well accept these facts.


Why would Rall describe it in comparison of the 109 as a "Saloon" with superb view?

Rall described the P-47s cocpit as a saloon, as did USAAF pilots compared to the P-51.



3rd Round. The slats:
Rall liked the slats, except in rough combat. Without the slats, the 109's takeoff and landing speeds would have been very high.
However, as he stated, in a ROUGH turn, the outboard slat would deploy very suddenly, snapping the aircraft. So in rough combat while riding the stall, they could interfere, sending you down into a spin-beginning.


In rough, sudden turn, the an plane without slats will only stall at a much higher AoA. A plane without slats in a rough turn will tighten up well before that, and probably fall into a spin. The Spit did just that, I have numerous reports from the RAF which deal with that problem. And once a Spit fell into a spin, it was a death trap for novices, it was VERY hard to recover it from a spin. Unlike the 109, which recovered itself just by releasing the controls...




Now I must say that I find the slat idea and design a superb idea. Bear in mind though that leading edge slats create less lift than say the better sorts of flaps. Still quite impressive. But I do NOT challenge Rall's words on that. Come on you avacado, the guy has 275 kills in a 109, so when he tells about both merits and vices of the 109, I honestly take his words as very much more credible than yours.


Leading edge slats give more lift than anything else at high angles of attack, simply because such AoA would not be possible w/o slats, the critical AoA where the plane snap stalls would be much less, regarding of wingloading etc..

Which makes the Spitfire loose out again, since it had neither combat flaps, neither slats. The 109 had them both, and it`s flaps could be lowered at rather high airspeeds.

But if you are so fond of Rall, here`s what he said on the 109 :

"
'The 109? That was a dream, the non plus ultra. Just like the F-14 of today. Of course, everyone wanted to fly it as soon as possible. I was very proud when I converted to it.'

-Major Gunther Rall, 275 victories


But if we are at qouting the 'legends', how what the all time aces said on the Bf 109 G. Yep, let`s see what Hartmann said on the Gustav, which was according to some, 'very hard to handle'...

"Manouvering was easy with it, and it was simple to handle. It accelerated up within moments, if you put into a dive. It proved to be good in aerobatics, with the 109 the corkscrewing was a simple matter, and one could come out of a spin easily."


I also seen just recently a text by a Yugoslavian pilot who flew both the Yak 3 and the 109G. He praised the 109 for it`s simple handling over the Yak 3, too.

Mark Hanna describes the 109s stall characteristics as follows :

"As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."


Southwood describes very much the same, ie. VERY good flying characteristics, plenty of warning for novice pilots, instant recovery from stall.... 'a plane for Experten only, eh?' Pardon me, but there was possibly no other plane that tolerated pilot errors in the air better than the 109.

The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position.  Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches.  This occurs 10klph before the stall.  The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet.  All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward.  Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down.  In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping.  Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward.  One interesting feature is the leading edge slats.  When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis.  I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this.

[Kurfürst]

Now for a round for Quill and his 109 time.
Quill was quite delighted with the 109 low speed handling. As soon as you got fast the roll rate got worse below to the one of the humble Spitfire Mk I.

Well then either Quill was a biased Spitdweeb, or it`s just you who, as usual, distorted his words, I think it`s the latter, because the RAE`s measured report above shows very well the Spitfire I was a real sucker at high speeds, not rolling any better than the 109E, but requiring superhuman strenght for it !

As seen below :




Here`s more from Quill. He very much agrees with me about the extremely poor roll capabilities of the Spitfires through it`s carrer.


"The metal ailerons solved the immediate problem but the non-repeatability difficulty persisted and I always felt that the lateral control characteristics fell far short of perfect at high indicated airspeeds. Joe Smith believed this too. He began to plan a fundamental change in the aileron design, but it was not possible to introduce this until the arrival of the stronger and stiffer wing in the Mk 21 series."



Supported by the NACA`s report, "Measurements of the flying qualities of a Supermarine Sptitife VA airplane." NACA Advanced Confidental Report, by William  H. Phillips and Joseph R. Vensel, which states :


"The ailerons were sufficiently effective at low speeds, and were relatively light at small deflections in high speed flight. The forces required to obtain high rolling velocities in high-speed flight were considered excessive. With a stick force of 30 lbs, full deflection of the ailerons could be obtained at speeds lower than 110 miles per hour.

The ailerons were relatively light for small deflections, but the slope of the curve of stick force against deflection increased progressively with deflection, so that about five times as much force was required to fully deflect the ailerons as was needed to reach one-half of the maximum travel.

The pilot was able to exert a maximum of about 40 lbs on the stick. With this force, full deflection could be attained only up to about 130 miles per hour. Beyond this speed, the rapid increase in stick force near maximum deflection prevented full motion of the control stick. Only one-half of the available deflection was reached with a 40 lbs stick force at 300 miles per hour, with the result that the pb/2V obtainable at this speed was reduced to 0.04 radian, or one-half that reached at low speeds."



Later they introduced short span ailerons. Instead of making things better, it only become worser.  Tactical trials of Spit VIII vs. Spit IX :

"In rate of roll, however, the Spitfire IX was considerably better especially at low altitude. A number of full rolls through 360 degrees were timed by the same pilot flying each aircraft in turn and although quanitative tests are difficult to produce, it appeared that there was often more than 1.5 seconds superiority for the Mark IX over the Mark VIII. The Mark VIII feels fairly light on the ailerons but at high speeds it becomes very heavy, and so this new combination of extended wing and small aileron cannot be considered satisfactory. "


And I could go on. Even postwar reports on postwar Spitfires tell that the aileron control is just - BAD.





Here is something to bear in mind, and hence, you true-beliver are probably making your stand, - the leverage of the Spitfire stick would allow the application of much more human force.


The higher the stick, the least force a human being can exert on it. A sitting`s human arm can exert about 25% more force in a lower position, than in a high position. Try it yourself, I have a nice grap of that.


The Stick travel of the 109 was much less, - so was the space to apply force. Spitfire pilots had just the room to jab their elbow against the hull and really pull. The "funny" stick would actually promote this. You'd understand what I'm saying if you ever did armwrestling. (which I doubt )


The funny stick was required because the control forces were excessive on the Spitfire. On the 109, aileron control forces were relatively light, so it was more advantageous to use a shorter stick, which means better response time, and the human body can also use greater force in this body position.

And regardless what you say - measured roll tests clearly show the 109 doing quicker rolls esp. at low speeds with less force. Chalk up another one for Professor Willy.



Did you see a Spit I in the air?
Did you see a film of Spit I doing aerobatics?

Yep. And you?



Do you know the Speed at which you would have needed 8 secs for a mere half roll?
I guess you'll say no, for you bloody well don't.
I for myself, don't know about the 8 secs speeds, but I presume it must have been in excess of 300 mph.

Pardon me as was wrong. The Spit I did not require 8 secs to do "a mere half roll". It required FAR more than that. 8 secs were actually for a 1/4 roll...



So again...

109 pilot pushes the stick forward... the Spit pilot does the same... the Merlin cuts out.. Spit pilot curses, grabs funny stick with both hands, jabs the elbow against the hull and PULLS, PULLS, AAAAARGH bloooody HELL, *PULLLLLLLLLSS*, MOOOOOVE YOU DAMNED STICK. -Keeps cursing-

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

Roughly 16 seconds later , the pilot is all wet, but the Spit is now in inverted flight, and the 109 - miles away...

The above describes the "manouveribilty" of the 1940 Spitfire Mk I in the rolling plane.

So and on to the Range.
Typical Babi style is to compare oranges with apples. So you choose the Griffon to the 109G.
Well, there are some hundred horses more under the hood of a XIV, and if you read about flight trials, the XIV outperforms the 109G in all aspects except perhaps the initial stage of a dive?
Dive away from that Spitty on your tail.......[/B]

I can compare whatever 109 vs. Spit mark in the same time frame, angie. The Spit looses out MASSIVELY in range on the same fuel load. I could have compared the XIV`s counterpart the K-4, but then the results would have been even more ugly for the Spitfire, since the 109K was even longer ranged than the 109G.

We can compare the Mk IX with the 109G if you like.

MkIX 434-450 miles on 85 gallons,
109G, 725 miles on 88 gallons.

Yep, the Spitfire probably was the shortest ranged of all WW2 fighters on internal tanks. Like it or not, but it`s was a major shortcoming of it.

I'm happy however to see that you admit the MkI has a similar range as the 109E....that is progress. Had to be since the operations of the MkI/II extended the operations of the Emil.....
[/B]

Yeah, in Angie world, operating from England over England is farther than operating from France over middle-England.

[Kurfürst]

And while we are at loss reports....



From Mike Spick`s, Luftwaffe Fighter Aces.

Could you comment on this one, Angus?

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
And while we are at loss reports....



From Mike Spick`s, Luftwaffe Fighter Aces.

Could you comment on this one, Angus?

Less experienced aircrew with poor tactics with the RAF at that point. The RAF didn't really start to come of age until later that summer.  Operating on the 'other side of the lines' so to speak where a damaged aircraft forced down would be a loss not recoverable as it would be for a Luftwaffe aircraft at the time.  

Think about the 24th losses.  How many of those 109 pilots that were lost over the Channel or were forced down in England to become POWs, end up back in the fight if that battle takes place over their own turf? How many of those 109s get recovered and repaired?  How many of those damaged RAF fighters that got down to be repaired, go down as losses if they were over France?

Dan/Slack

[Angus]

Oh dear, Izzy here again, it was just about to get comfy....
Range: Spitfires from Mk II onwards operated to middle Belgium roughly without Drop tanks. That would give the 109 a ticket from N-France to Birmingham on the same fuel. But up there they were a rare sight....
Roll: Spit I and 109E are in a similar ballpark, the 109 winning at low speeds. After that the ball goes to Spit V and 109F. Once the Mk V was fixed well, again similar. Once clipped, the ball goes to the Spit.
I saw you picked a Spit VIII with extended wings, well that's what is to be expected of you. Maybe you should pick a Clipped IXLF next time.
And of course it is only in your head that the roll kept going "worser". While Quill lists a typical 400 mph roll for a Spit I at 14 degrees pr sec (hmm, but that's 90 degrees in 6 secs), the ultimate Spit with full span wings rolls at a whooping 68 degrees pr second.
BUNT: POssible from MkV Spitfire onwards. I would not bunt at 400 mph by the way. Wings can only take so-so much neg-G's.  A good countermeasure is an uphill maneuver. Lose the height, loose the fight.
Climb: Same ballpark more or less on the same given power. Sometimes 109 ruled, sometimes the Spitfire.
Turn: Close. Spitfire wins, the difference being least marked between a Mk IX and a 109F, if those met in the air.
Climbing turn: The 109 cannot follow a Spitfire.
Dive: The 109 is markedly fasteruntil the arrival of the Griffon.

And now a cookie from the 109 pilot:
"...die beweglichkeit der Machine um Alle Achsen macht grossen Eindruck auf mich..."
Gunther Rall speaking of the Spitfire Mein Flugbuch, p. 214

Will look into loss numbers later.

[MiloMorai]

Looks rather cramped in this pic.



Barbi stop with this 109 range bs. You give the MOST economical range for the 109 and the normal range, not the Spit's MOST economical range.

Spitfire I

@ 14000', most economical > 3.4 hr
@ 18,500' cruising weak > 1.88 hr
@ 14,500', cruising rich > 1.25 hr
@ 12,000', climbing > 1.05 hr
@ 17,000', all-out level > 0.96 hr


Me109E

@ SL, max economy > 2.20 hr, range 404mi
@ SL, max continuous > 1.05 hr, range 267mi

@ 9842', max economy > 2.05 hr, range 410mi
@ 9842', max continuous > 1.00 hr, range 280mi

@ 16404', max economy > 1.50 hr, range 413mi
@ 16404', max continuous > 0.55 hr, range 286mi

@ 19865', max economy > 1.40 hr, range 395mi
@ 19865', max continuous > 1.10 hr, range 323mi


LOL, a bogus chart.

Damaged 109s could be land safely in France but the RAF a/c had to fly back across the Channel and land in the UK, if they could make it that far. Never mind that the RAF was outnumbered more than 2:1.


quote: The higher the stick, the least force a human being can exert on it. A sitting`s human arm can exert about 25% more force in a lower position, than in a high position.

Never heard of leverage Barbi? A joystick is a Class 1 lever.

[Kurfürst]

Guppy, here are the stats for 'exchange rate' when the LW was operating over the enemy area during the Battle of Britain. These statistics come from Hooton, but appearantly they were published by many others as well.

Spitfire vs. Bf 109  : 219 to 180 lost.
Hurricane vs. Bf 109 : 272 to 153 lost.

1.5 to 1 in the 109s favour...


Why I am posting this is just to put Angie back into his place with his tunnel vision on 24th June.. besides the point Angie, much like Nashwan, doesn`t really knows German unit designations, ie. he is mixing up German squadrons and wings.

Regardless, why is that I am completely unable to find any cross-checked loss accounts that would just once show the Spits getting the upper hand in combat in any more lenghty combat period, not just one day or a single small scale engagement. Was it always down the more experience, better tactics on the LW part... oh come on. Not in Dunkirk, where Spitfire pilots were from the more experienced ones, ie. Spit squadrons were not commenced into the fight before Dunkirk, they sustained no severe losses yet, all of their pilots were the ones who got through training in peacetime.

All in all, the Spitfire seem to have a bad combat history against the 109. Looks like the RAF kept underestimating the 109, the 109 kept the upper hand in combat over the RAF.

[Angus]

...And that's why after 4 years of fighting, the LW could mount no more than 200-300 fighters in the air on the western front, largely 190's.......

edited: source is Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

So nice of you to post that chart that included LW bombers, but then you fail to state how many LW bombers were lost during BoB. A typical Barbi ploy of data manipulation to suit his German is uber mentality.  

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by MiloMorai

Barbi stop with this 109 range bs. You give the MOST economical range for the 109 and the normal range, not the Spit's MOST economical range.

Unsupported claim, but post docs that show the Spit I`s economic range.

But Milo, pray tell me, how could the Spit I having more endurance if the Merlin consumed a lot more?

The British/German equivalent of max. continous is Cruising (Rich) / Dauerleisung.

At this power, the Merlin consumed 68 gallon/h, the DB 601A only 59 gallon/h, 20% lower. Thus endurance was also 20% higher on the 109E.

Of course you can compare apples and oranges as you did.




Damaged 109s could be land safely in France but the RAF a/c had to fly back across the Channel and land in the UK, if they could make it that far. Never mind that the RAF was outnumbered more than 2:1.


Maths isn`t your strong point, Milo. 1652+ RAF single engined fighter sorties vs. 1595 LW single engined fighter sorties. Looks like the RAF had some slight advantage in fighter numbers, yet lost 97 fighters for 27 Bf 109s... Ratio ~4:1 for the 109`s favour again.

Of couse if you want to add bombers like the Stuka... I never knew the Stuka made such horrendous butchering of Spitfires... or maybe it was the Do-17 ?

But it`s so funny to see the 'vulnerable' Stuka operating in the same area with 1.2% loss rate despite the heavy flak from ships, whereas the Spits operating with 5 times as severe losses !

quote: The higher the stick, the least force a human being can exert on it. A sitting`s human arm can exert about 25% more force in a lower position, than in a high position.

Never heard of leverage Barbi? A joystick is a Class 1 lever.

No Milo, I never heard of leverage on Spitfire stick, of which only the top 4 inches or so was moving, the rest was FIXED. Speaking of 'leverage', even the 109 had more leverage than that!

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
...And that's why after 4 years of fighting, the LW could mount no more than 200-300 fighters in the air on the western front, largely 190's.......

Quite badly informed and factually wrong.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Oh dear, Izzy here again, it was just about to get comfy....
Range: Spitfires from Mk II onwards operated to middle Belgium roughly without Drop tanks. That would give the 109 a ticket from N-France to Birmingham on the same fuel. But up there they were a rare sight....

[/B]

Typical sweeping statement from Angie, factual value=0, validity factor =0 due to the lack of real facts, and will never backed up by anything, just like he didn`t backed up anything so far.



Roll: Spit I and 109E are in a similar ballpark, the 109 winning at low speeds. After that the ball goes to Spit V and 109F. Once the Mk V was fixed well, again similar. Once clipped, the ball goes to the Spit.

I sense the lack of factuality.



I saw you picked a Spit VIII with extended wings, well that's what is to be expected of you. Maybe you should pick a Clipped IXLF next time.

Which was, according to the RAF, very rare, and it was rare because, according to the RAF, clipping the wings yielded only minimal improvement in roll rate, but considerable decrease in climbing, turning, handling etc.?




And of course it is only in your head that the roll kept going "worser". While Quill lists a typical 400 mph roll for a Spit I at 14 degrees pr sec (hmm, but that's 90 degrees in 6 secs), the ultimate Spit with full span wings rolls at a whooping 68 degrees pr second.

Never heard of that Spitfire Mark Ultimate. I guess I never will, since you won`t back that up neither.


BUNT: POssible from MkV Spitfire onwards. I would not bunt at 400 mph by the way. Wings can only take so-so much neg-G's.  A good countermeasure is an uphill maneuver. Lose the height, loose the fight.

Huh..? You mean if you are already behind an enemy, and he starts to escape by diving, the good countermeasure is to leave him to escape by starting a loop?



Climb: Same ballpark more or less on the same given power. Sometimes 109 ruled, sometimes the Spitfire.

Very general but OK. Oh well, I guess I should appreciate this as a development from the Spitfire Better In Everything stance..


Turn: Close. Spitfire wins, the difference being least marked between a Mk IX and a 109F, if those met in the air..

Typical sweeping statement from Angie, factual value=0, validity factor =0 due to the lack of facts backing it up, just like he didn`t backed up anything so far.

Climbing turn: The 109 cannot follow a Spitfire.

That depends on the ROC, and as you have admitted, that depends on the actual models...

Stiegler said that absolutely nothing could follow the 109K in climbing turn. And if you read engagement stories, climbing spiral was exactly what was also very much liked by 109 pilots. Obviously it must have worked.



Dive: The 109 is markedly fasteruntil the arrival of the Griffon.

And even after, especially if you compare the 1944 109K w. the 1944 Spit XIV, and not the 1943 109G-6 with gunpods... not to mention how 'common' Griffon Spits were, see Page 1 of this thread.

And now a cookie from the 109 pilot:
"...die beweglichkeit der Machine um Alle Achsen macht grossen Eindruck auf mich..."
Gunther Rall speaking of the Spitfire Mein Flugbuch, p. 214

Will look into loss numbers later. [/B]

This is from Jeff Ethell on the Spitfire controls :


"The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the FW 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonised controls."

I guess high speed barrel roll wasn`t exactly the Spitfire`s strong point.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Guppy, here are the stats for 'exchange rate' when the LW was operating over the enemy area during the Battle of Britain. These statistics come from Hooton, but appearantly they were published by many others as well.

Spitfire vs. Bf 109  : 219 to 180 lost.
Hurricane vs. Bf 109 : 272 to 153 lost.

1.5 to 1 in the 109s favour...


Why I am posting this is just to put Angie back into his place with his tunnel vision on 24th June.. besides the point Angie, much like Nashwan, doesn`t really knows German unit designations, ie. he is mixing up German squadrons and wings.

Regardless, why is that I am completely unable to find any cross-checked loss accounts that would just once show the Spits getting the upper hand in combat in any more lenghty combat period, not just one day or a single small scale engagement. Was it always down the more experience, better tactics on the LW part... oh come on. Not in Dunkirk, where Spitfire pilots were from the more experienced ones, ie. Spit squadrons were not commenced into the fight before Dunkirk, they sustained no severe losses yet, all of their pilots were the ones who got through training in peacetime.

All in all, the Spitfire seem to have a bad combat history against the 109. Looks like the RAF kept underestimating the 109, the 109 kept the upper hand in combat over the RAF.

You can use the same argument being used to explain LW losses to USAAF fighters over Europe.  The RAF fighters first priority was to stop the bombers.

The Spit v 109 combats matched essentially equal aircraft.  Often it came down to pilot skill and who had the opportunity to initiate the attack.  Once again the RAF fighters first priority was the bombers meaning the 109s would have been going after fighters who were going after bombers.  

Once again the result is what matters.  Who won?  Seems to me the LW never gained air superiority over England, and England didn't get invaded.

As for experienced Spit pilots at Dunkirk.  They were not experienced at Dunkirk.  The Squadrons based in France had been Hurri Squadrons.  The 109 pilots had been at it since Poland if not those that served in Spain.  Peacetime training wasn't going to help much.  They were still flying line astern, attacking with outmoded tactics and hadn't learned from combat that those things didn't work.  If anything the blooding they took at Dunkirk at least opened their eyes to changing the way things were done so that they were more effective later.

This still comes down to an apparent need on your point to prove that the 109 was better then the Spit.  

I believe they were both great aircraft.  

In the end it comes down to who was still standing when the war was over though doesn't it?  No matter how you twist the statistics and graphs, the answer remains the same.

The Spits were over Berlin in 1945, the 109s were not over London in 45.

Dan/Slack